[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to think people can only have their way at the expense of other

[/ QUOTE ] No I don't. I rely on the trivial truth that sometimes 'people can have their way at the expense of another'. It is true, however, that in some cases one can only have there way at the expense of another (e.g. either you are the boss or I am the boss, abortion laws, etc.)

[ QUOTE ]
So far as i can see, the worst you can say about anarchy is that it descends into what we have now.

[/ QUOTE ] Or civil war. Or fascist communism or capitalism. Or theocracy. Depends on who has the most guns and people. The beauty of a democracy which is seen as legitimate is that, when one side loses, they know that the loss is temporary and/or place value in the procedures for solving disputes themselves, and that there are non-violent procedural ways of trying to go ahead and attempt to gain power next time. Think of the 2000 presidential election.

[ QUOTE ]
If different firms were competing the incentive would be for cooperation and most likely respect for private property. Without the state, everyone must bare their own costs and cant externalize the cost onto the citizenry. This means war is very costly and the major incentive will be to cooperate. Different capitalist firms in todays world dont bother solving disputes with other firms violently and the reasoning isnt necessarily because of the government

[/ QUOTE ] This is the classic ACist reply to the civil warfare objection, but it is woefully inadequate, for (among other reasons) it presupposes that people are motivated solely by monetary gains. But the goals of most groups I have in mind here are not about increasing monetary gains...they are those who want to bring about theocracy, or want power and high relative status for extrinsic or intrinsic reasons, or a conception of distributive justice (or any ideology). You are saying "But they will have less of X if they fight"...but what they want is Y or Z, and they could care less if they lose every last ounce of X trying to get Y or Z, which is what most matters to them. So your argument is a non-sequitur.

Another reason this argument is inadequate is that it presupposes that people are 'rational' in some sense; that is, not only do they seek profit, but they seek it in the manner which is truly the best way to maximize it; yet the mere fact that most businesses fail demonstrates that it is not the case. Even if it would *really be unprofitable for a firm to engage in violence, we can expect that many businesses would not realize this and would in fact try to increase profits via force.
[ QUOTE ]

One more point is the government proclaims a monopoly on force, but this isnt entirely true. The government creates and maintains mob groups for example.

[/ QUOTE ] The gov't does so for its own purposes, and if the mob groups do not further the purposes

In other words, we should see your supposed mob groups as part of, an example of, the gov'ts monopoly on force, not as a counterexample to that monopoly.

[ QUOTE ]
You also seem to think there is more a peaceful scenario by the government having a monopoly on force rather than that power being dispersed

[/ QUOTE ] Indeed I do. But In fact, I argued for it, and empirical evidence strongly supports my view.

[ QUOTE ]
If hundred people are standing by a bridge in a democracy and 51 say jump and 49 say no, then the 49 who refuse are pushed over the edge. In anarchy, 51 will have a common interest, 49 will have a common interest, but since there is no majority rules, 51 will jump and 49 will leave.

[/ QUOTE ] No. In most cases in democracy the 51 THREATEN to throw the 49 off, in anarchy, if the issue is important enough, they WILL throw them off; or, if the 49 are more powerful, they will prevent the 51 from jumping off. You can call the latter situation "not anarchy" if you want, but what is relevant, politically speaking, is not what the concept of anarchy is, but what the reality and consequences of an anarchical society would be.